In every business relationship there is the potential for conflict over contractual agreements or business operations. When such conflicts arise, there is no need to incur the onerous expense and delays involved in traditional litigation. There are readily available alternative dispute resolution procedures that will enable you to resolve your disputes relatively quickly, fairly and cost-effectively.

Resolving international disputes demands special skills, experience and cultural sensitivity. That’s why thousands of attorneys and their clients turn to JAMS. We are a recognized leader in cross-border mediations and arbitrations, with resources wherever you or your clients do business.

Colleges and universities need to manage, resolve and prevent conflict. As a worldwide leader in dispute resolution, JAMS is singularly qualified to provide a comprehensive range of unique and effective solutions for problems facing students, faculty and administration.

The JAMS ADR blog serves to engage our clients, the legal community and the public in a discussion about alternative dispute resolution. As leaders in mediation, arbitration and more, we strive to remain at the forefront of legal developments, trends and news in areas of law that pertain to ADR.

International commercial arbitration is one of the fastest-growing practices at JAMS. With industry leading rules, JAMS is praised for a highly experienced panel with specialties in many key areas, multilingual case management capabilities, and unparalleled service. JAMS specializes in the resolution of international disputes and is one of the largest providers of commercial arbitration in the world.

Hon. Terence Bruiniers (Ret.)

Case Manager

Biography

Hon. Terence Bruiniers (Ret.) served as a justice on the First District, Division Five, California Court of Appeal, authoring more than 600 opinions in nearly all areas of the law. He also served on the Contra Costa Superior Court, where he implemented one of the first programs in the state for electronic filing of court documents. He later led the design and implementation of the now statewide appellate e-filing system during his tenure on the appellate court.

Before his appointment to the bench, Justice Bruiniers practiced law for 18 years at the San Francisco firm of Farrand, Cooper & Bruiniers. He handled business and commercial litigation and maintained a transactional practice representing national and international clients in technology-related matters. As a deputy district attorney in Alameda County for seven years, he prosecuted more than 100 jury trials to verdict, including capital cases.

Justice Bruiniers believes that credibility is a lawyer’s most valuable professional asset and it should never be jeopardized. As a trial judge, he earned a reputation for meticulous preparation and thorough familiarity with all matters coming before him. He now serves as a mediator, arbitrator and special master, and handles neutral analysis matters, including mock exercises and appellate review.

ADR Qualifications

10 years as a justice on the First District Court of Appeal, Division Five

10 years as a Contra Costa Superior Court judge, serving as presiding judge and as the designated complex litigation department

18 years as a member of the Information Technology Advisory Committee to the Judicial Council, serving as vice-chair and chair

Representative Matters

Business/Commercial

Morrical v. Rogers (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 438: Action to determine the validity of an election of corporate directors may be based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty or conflict of interest.

Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. Actelion Ltd. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 945: Foreign manufacturer of hypertension drug sued a foreign competitor, its executives and its domestic subsidiary after the domestic company notified plaintiff that it would discontinue development of plaintiff’s hypertension drug under preexisting licensing agreement. Among other claims, plaintiff alleged intentional interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of a confidentiality agreement and breach of confidence.

Personal Injury/Torts

Johnson v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 234: Products liability action against automotive parts manufacturers for injuries alleged to have been caused by secondary exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing materials. No support for inference of specific exposure to asbestos-containing material; supplier of brake assemblies was not strictly liable under a design defect theory.

Holman v. Altana Pharma US, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 262: Trial court had discretion to award to employer, as prevailing party in employment discrimination action under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), expert witness fees as costs under the offer of judgment statute, even if the employee's case was not frivolous, but trial court was required to scale the amount of the expert fee award after considering the relative resources of the parties.

Land Use/Environmental

Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 933: Use permits and zoning variances for a mixed-use development project properly granted under Density Bonus Law, and variances were required to make development project economically feasible.

Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357: Environmental impact report (EIR) was sufficient, and safety concerns were not proper considerations under CEQA.

Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129: Project's visual impact on a surrounding, officially designated historical district is an appropriate aesthetic impact review under CEQA; substantial evidence supported fair argument that project would have an adverse aesthetic impact on city historic overlay district.

Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 33: Petition for writ of mandate challenging legal adequacy of county water agency's urban water management plan. No alternative plan was required for anticipated continuation of diversions into river containing endangered species at current levels; no alternative plan was required to supplement or replace water supplies impacted by city's planned discharge of treated wastewater; and county water agency was not required to consult with additional agencies about urban water management plan.

Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 353: Eminent domain matter in which condemnee petitioned for writ of mandate and filed complaint for injunctive relief challenging park district's resolution of necessity to condemn property and notice of exemption from CEQA. Trial court was not required to vacate resolution of necessity as remedy for failure to prepare EIR for park.

Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545: Award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to “clear sailing agreement” complied with applicable law and was not unfair to class members; difference between maximum amount of attorney's fees which defendant bank agreed to pay amount of fees and costs actually awarded did not constitute a surplus belonging to class members.

Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 298: Consumer class action against cellular telephone carriers challenging early service contract termination fees (ETFs). Regulation of cellular telephone ETFs as liquidated damages provisions was not preempted rate regulation; carrier did not engage in a reasonable endeavor to estimate fair compensation in setting ETFs; evidence supported finding that ETF amounts were not set based on actual or estimated loss; and carrier failed to establish that its ETFs were alternative performance provisions.

Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380: Members of the class in a class action challenging ETFs filed objections to settlement requiring carrier provide a common fund of $21million from which legal fees and costs would be paid and from which certain class members would be reimbursed. Notice of settlement was not misleading or incomplete; incentive payments to named class representatives properly approved by trial court.

Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 201: Putative class action against cellular telephone service providers for alleged violations of Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in allegedly making false and deceptive representations in the promotion, marketing and sale of airtime bucket plans. Subscribers failed to allege (1) community of interest on issue of causation as to fraud and CLRA claims; (2) community of interest on issue of reliance as to UCL restitution claims; and (3) measurable amount of class-wide restitution under UCL, but subscribers stated claim for class-wide injunctive relief under UCL.

T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334: Wireless telephone service providers brought action against city for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging city's wireless facility site permit ordinance. City's wireless facility site permit ordinance is not subject to implied preemption on its face by the Public Utilities Code provision authorizing telephone lines; city's wireless facility site permit ordinance is not subject to direct conflict preemption on its face by the Public Utilities Code.

Coyne v. De Leo (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 801: Landlord/tenant matter in which evidence that landlord's transfer of property was a sham was relevant and admissible in unlawful detainer action against elderly tenant under Ellis Act.

Locations

Select to Print

Biography

Contact Information

Biography

Honors, Memberships and Professional Activities

Background and Education

Media

Counsel Comments

News

Events

Publications

Additional Information

Practice Areas

Locations

Disclaimer

This page is for general information purposes. JAMS makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy or completeness. Interested persons should conduct their own research regarding information on this website before deciding to use JAMS, including investigation and research of JAMS neutrals. See More

Sign up for email alerts

This website is not a solicitation for business. All content on the JAMS website is intended to provide general information about JAMS and an opportunity for interested persons to contact JAMS. The content of this website is not offered as legal advice or legal opinion and it should not be relied upon for any specific situation. JAMS neutrals are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney client relationship is intended. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of JAMS services. While JAMS endeavors to keep the information updated and correct, JAMS makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the information contained in this website. See More